Liberals: The True Minority (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

If you check out liberal web sites much these days, the one common thread they all have (other than hysteria and conspiracy theories) is that what gets them by from one election to the next is this fantasy that there is this unsung silent majority of liberals just waiting (...and waiting) to jump out of the woodwork and deliver unbathed hippy justice to the man.

Reality:

1) McCain-Feingold proved that liberals get nearly all their support from extreme minority fringe groups, and rarely from regular, mainstream people.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...rats-rich.html?highlight=democrats+favor+rich

2) There have only been 4 liberal presidents in the last 60 years.

-Kennedy got into office by cheating. The number of dead people who voted for Kennedy in Chicago voting districts surpassed his margin of victory.

"Kennedy won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. But Republicans charged that that there was voter fraud in Texas and in Cook County, Ill., where the Democratic political machine was controlled by Mayor Richard Daley -- the father of this year's Gore campaign manager, Bill Daley. A shift of 4,480 votes in Illinois and 25,000 in Texas would have given Nixon the presidency."

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...b-zSkVA&_md5=b32ecd9e5b9c65caa5d3d1032e46c5f4

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania). November 10, 2000. Pg. A-12. "NIXON DECIDED '60 RECOUNT WAS TOO RISKY." JACK TORRY.

-Johnson got in by...Kennedy getting shot.

-Carter got in because of Watergate.

-and Bill Clinton got in by acting like a conservative...which he only had to do because...

MAINSTREAM AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE, NOT LIBERAL.

3) Then there is the fact that liberal books, radio shows, TV shows nearly always bomb. People don't want liberal sentiment. That's why the only liberal stations that survive are publicly-funded ones (immune to the preferences of the people).

 

[Captain America]

Hey Aqua, relax. Go fishing. Have a beer. Your guys are done. Accept it and move on. The desperation from the right is becoming quite embarassing as of late.:3oops:

It's not the end of the world. Just the end of the GOP. For now, anyways. Don't worry. Give the dems enough time to hang themselves and your guys will be back in the saddle again, before you know it (to hang themselves again.) It's just gonna take a little time.

In the meantime, have a Coke and a smile. :mrgreen:

You know Washington swings like a pendulum.

Take a break. Watch your blood pressure.

 

[Indy]

Aquapub, I totally agree. Liberals are in the minority. Unfortunately for you though conservatives are ALSO in the minority. The truth of the matter is that the MAJORITY consists of moderates. So... so much for your argument that republicans are any better.

 

[ModerateDem]

If you check out liberal web sites much these days, the one common thread they all have (other than hysteria and conspiracy theories) is that what gets them by from one election to the next is this fantasy that there is this unsung silent majority of liberals just waiting (...and waiting) to jump out of the woodwork and deliver unbathed hippy justice to the man.

Reality:

1) McCain-Feingold proved that liberals get nearly all their support from extreme minority fringe groups, and rarely from regular, mainstream people.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...rats-rich.html?highlight=democrats+favor+rich

2) There have only been 4 liberal presidents in the last 60 years.

-Kennedy got into office by cheating. The number of dead people who voted for Kennedy in Chicago voting districts surpassed his margin of victory.

"Kennedy won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. But Republicans charged that that there was voter fraud in Texas and in Cook County, Ill., where the Democratic political machine was controlled by Mayor Richard Daley -- the father of this year's Gore campaign manager, Bill Daley. A shift of 4,480 votes in Illinois and 25,000 in Texas would have given Nixon the presidency."

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...b-zSkVA&_md5=b32ecd9e5b9c65caa5d3d1032e46c5f4

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania). November 10, 2000. Pg. A-12. "NIXON DECIDED '60 RECOUNT WAS TOO RISKY." JACK TORRY.

-Johnson got in by...Kennedy getting shot.

-Carter got in because of Watergate.

-and Bill Clinton got in by acting like a conservative...which he only had to do because...

MAINSTREAM AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE, NOT LIBERAL.

3) Then there is the fact that liberal books, radio shows, TV shows nearly always bomb. People don't want liberal sentiment. That's why the only liberal stations that survive are publicly-funded ones (immune to the preferences of the people).

Oh how sweet is the song of the uninformed.

 

[jfuh]

Aquapub, I totally agree. Liberals are in the minority. Unfortunately for you though conservatives are ALSO in the minority. The truth of the matter is that the MAJORITY consists of moderates. So... so much for your argument that republicans are any better.

The republicans today are not conservatives. Can you name anything they've tried to conserve? Deffinetely not any civil rights, they're only creating a further orwellian society. The GOP are something else, predominantly some bizzare crowd of nuts.

 

[Indy]

The republicans today are not conservatives. Can you name anything they've tried to conserve? Deffinetely not any civil rights, they're only creating a further orwellian society. The GOP are something else, predominantly some bizzare crowd of nuts.

This is true and I've waisted time trying to explain that to the likes of NP before but I seem to loose him, aquapub, and ptskid when you start talking about actual concepts and historical precidence.

 

[jallman]

If you check out liberal web sites much these days, the one common thread they all have (other than hysteria and conspiracy theories) is that what gets them by from one election to the next is this fantasy that there is this unsung silent majority of liberals just waiting (...and waiting) to jump out of the woodwork and deliver unbathed hippy justice to the man.

Reality:

1) McCain-Feingold proved that liberals get nearly all their support from extreme minority fringe groups, and rarely from regular, mainstream people.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...rats-rich.html?highlight=democrats+favor+rich

2) There have only been 4 liberal presidents in the last 60 years.

-Kennedy got into office by cheating. The number of dead people who voted for Kennedy in Chicago voting districts surpassed his margin of victory.

"Kennedy won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. But Republicans charged that that there was voter fraud in Texas and in Cook County, Ill., where the Democratic political machine was controlled by Mayor Richard Daley -- the father of this year's Gore campaign manager, Bill Daley. A shift of 4,480 votes in Illinois and 25,000 in Texas would have given Nixon the presidency."

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...b-zSkVA&_md5=b32ecd9e5b9c65caa5d3d1032e46c5f4

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania). November 10, 2000. Pg. A-12. "NIXON DECIDED '60 RECOUNT WAS TOO RISKY." JACK TORRY.

-Johnson got in by...Kennedy getting shot.

-Carter got in because of Watergate.

-and Bill Clinton got in by acting like a conservative...which he only had to do because...

MAINSTREAM AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE, NOT LIBERAL.

3) Then there is the fact that liberal books, radio shows, TV shows nearly always bomb. People don't want liberal sentiment. That's why the only liberal stations that survive are publicly-funded ones (immune to the preferences of the people).

you certainly take partisan hackmanship to an art form. Bad art, but dramatic nonetheless.

 

[Navy Pride]

A lot of Liberals are in a state of denial.........Indy comes to mind........For some reason they are ashamed to be called Liberals so they identify themselves as moderates.........If you go to the members list in this forum you will see plenty examples of this.......

 

[Iriemon]

A lot of Liberals are in a state of denial.........Indy comes to mind........For some reason they are ashamed to be called Liberals so they identify themselves as moderates.........If you go to the members list in this forum you will see plenty examples of this.......

You think? I'm proud to be a liberal. Who'd want to be a conservative these days? Eww.

 

[Navy Pride]

You think? I'm proud to be a liberal. Who'd want to be a conservative these days? Eww.

Did I say you?

 

[Indy]

A lot of Liberals are in a state of denial.........Indy comes to mind........For some reason they are ashamed to be called Liberals so they identify themselves as moderates.........If you go to the members list in this forum you will see plenty examples of this.......

::Yawn:: How many times are you going to use this drivel? Fine NP if it means so much to you, and it obviously does, then I'll let you call me a liberal and I won't keep correcting you. It'll kinda be like patting your niece or nephew on the head when they say they are a dog. "Sure you are Timmy, sure you are."

I will say this though, there are plenty of progressives who are denial, NP comes to mind.

 

[Iriemon]

::Yawn:: How many times are you going to use this drivel? Fine NP if it means so much to you, and it obviously does, then I'll let you call me a liberal and I won't keep correcting you. It'll kinda be like patting your niece or nephew on the head when they say they are a dog. "Sure you are Timmy, sure you are."

I will say this though, there are plenty of progressives who are denial, NP comes to mind.

NP, a progressive?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

If you check out liberal web sites much these days, the one common thread they all have (other than hysteria and conspiracy theories) is that what gets them by from one election to the next is this fantasy that there is this unsung silent majority of liberals just waiting (...and waiting) to jump out of the woodwork and deliver unbathed hippy justice to the man.

Reality:

1) McCain-Feingold proved that liberals get nearly all their support from extreme minority fringe groups, and rarely from regular, mainstream people.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...rats-rich.html?highlight=democrats+favor+rich

2) There have only been 4 liberal presidents in the last 60 years.

-Kennedy got into office by cheating. The number of dead people who voted for Kennedy in Chicago voting districts surpassed his margin of victory.

"Kennedy won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. But Republicans charged that that there was voter fraud in Texas and in Cook County, Ill., where the Democratic political machine was controlled by Mayor Richard Daley -- the father of this year's Gore campaign manager, Bill Daley. A shift of 4,480 votes in Illinois and 25,000 in Texas would have given Nixon the presidency."

http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.li...b-zSkVA&_md5=b32ecd9e5b9c65caa5d3d1032e46c5f4

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania). November 10, 2000. Pg. A-12. "NIXON DECIDED '60 RECOUNT WAS TOO RISKY." JACK TORRY.

-Johnson got in by...Kennedy getting shot.

-Carter got in because of Watergate.

-and Bill Clinton got in by acting like a conservative...which he only had to do because...

MAINSTREAM AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE, NOT LIBERAL.

3) Then there is the fact that liberal books, radio shows, TV shows nearly always bomb. People don't want liberal sentiment. That's why the only liberal stations that survive are publicly-funded ones (immune to the preferences of the people).

I disagree.

U.S presidents don't win elections by popular vote. They must get enough electoral college votes. (Correct me if I have got this wrong) Therefore states that have smaller population bases have a disproportionate voting power. The electoral collage does not equate to one man one vote. Since, it appears that many of the less densly populated and rural states tend to vote Republican, it could be argued that the majority of Americans are not conservative but moderates, and (lite) liberals. Since the U.S presidential electoral system is not completely based on the popular vote, it is inaccurate to say that most Americans vote Republican.

Lastly Aquapub, the Republican and Democrat parties of 60's and 50's were very different to today's parties. Kennedy got a lot of votes from the Dixicrat deep south, Democrat voters that were very anti-civil rights. At that time the Republican Party had many of what you'd now call Republican's in name only. The kind of candidates that were fiscally conservative, and moderate on moral issues. Eg Eisenhower.

During the 60's you had mixed economy liberals like the Kennedy's and racist segregationists in the Democrats, interesting alliance to say the least. Anyway since the policies of the Republican and Democratic Parties has changed, it is inaccurate to make historical statements of the voting patterns of Americans. Would a Republican voter of the 50's to early 60's still vote Republican today? Would a Dixicrat still vote Democrat today?

 

[Indy]

NP, a progressive?

Yeah, a progressive in the way that he wants more laws created with more gov't oversight into the affairs of its people (bigger gov't) and he wasnt's changes made to the constitution.

He may not fall along the lines of the typical progressive, i.e. wanting things changed to make peoples lives better, but he does want things changed to shape this country into the image in his head.

He sure as heck isn't a conservative with his viewpoints.

 

[Navy Pride]

NP, a progressive?

That is a good one isn't it Iriemon.......A Liberal calling me a Liberal when we disagree on every issue........

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah, a progressive in the way that he wants more laws created with more gov't oversight into the affairs of its people (bigger gov't) and he wasnt's changes made to the constitution.

He may not fall along the lines of the typical progressive, i.e. wanting things changed to make peoples lives better, but he does want things changed to shape this country into the image in his head.

He sure as heck isn't a conservative with his viewpoints.

A far left Liberal trying to define a Conservative...I love it......

 

[jallman]

A far left Liberal trying to define a Conservative...I love it......

But chief...just because you love bush and respect the military and fling the word liberal like its venom doesn't mean you are a true conservative either. In fact, he has a point...you seem quite aligned with the worst of liberal thinking sometimes.

 

[Navy Pride]

But chief...just because you love bush and respect the military and fling the word liberal like its venom doesn't mean you are a true conservative either. In fact, he has a point...you seem quite aligned with the worst of liberal thinking sometimes.

jallman, you might not believe but I disagree with Bush on many issues. spending and Immigration come to mind...............I might even have voted for a democrat in 2004 if the party had put up a decent moerate candidate instead of a scum bag far left lying liberal like Kerry.......

That said when it comes to the war on terror and in Iraq I am 100% behind the president because if we lose there all the other issues don't mean squat because we will all be dead..........

Liberals are soft on the War on Terror..........They feel it should be fought in a kind and sensitive way.............If they get control of our government it could be the end of this country as we know it.........

 

[Navy Pride]

]Yeah, a progressive in the way that he wants more laws created with more gov't oversight into the affairs of its people (bigger gov't) and he wasnt's changes made to the constitution.[/B]

He may not fall along the lines of the typical progressive, i.e. wanting things changed to make peoples lives better, but he does want things changed to shape this country into the image in his head.

He sure as heck isn't a conservative with his viewpoints.

Huh? you better quit snorting that stuff my Liberal friend....Its eating your brain cells......

 

[Iriemon]

Democratic candidates are typically financially supported by populist, grass-roots movements of a broad section of society giving small amounts of money.

Republicans obtain power by pandering to special interest groups favoring the very wealthiest and the corporate power brokers, who use loop holes to funnel millions to political campaigns, and are rewarded later with favorable legislation that has help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

 

[Iriemon]

Reality:

1) McCain-Feingold proved that liberals get nearly all their support from extreme minority fringe groups, and rarely from regular, mainstream people.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...rats-rich.html?highlight=democrats+favor+rich

It's hilarious when people cite themselves as support for their own statements.

But in truth, you are totally wrong. Extensive research has proved that Democratic candidates are typically financially supported by populist, grass-roots movements of a broad section of society giving small amounts of money.

Republicans, on the other hand, obtain power by pandering to special interest groups favoring the very wealthiest and the corporate power brokers, who use loop holes to funnel millions to political campaigns, and are rewarded later with favorable legislation that has help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/403074-post20.html

 

[jfuh]

A far left Liberal trying to define a Conservative...I love it......

Hate to break it to you NP, you're not a conservative just because you say you are. See, Orwellian doctrine that this administration is adopting which you blindly support goes completely against conservative ideology of a minimalist government that stays the **** out of ppl's lives.

 

[ModerateDem]

jallman, you might not believe but I disagree with Bush on many issues. spending and Immigration come to mind...............I might even have voted for a democrat in 2004 if the party had put up a decent moerate candidate instead of a scum bag far left lying liberal like Kerry.......

And if the Republicans ever put up a decent moderate candidate also I would probably vote for them. Especially If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination then I will throw my support behind McCain.

That said when it comes to the war on terror and in Iraq I am 100% behind the president because if we lose there all the other issues don't mean squat because we will all be dead..........

I am glad to see that you are separating the two and distinguishing the two different wars for their Ideological value. Most conservatives would lump the two together and claim they are one in the same.

Liberals are soft on the War on Terror..........They feel it should be fought in a kind and sensitive way.............If they get control of our government it could be the end of this country as we know it.........

true there are some extreme Liberals who are pro-peace and are turn the other cheek Types. but High and far most of the "liberals" support the ongoing war on terror. They just do not support how it is handled or the War in Iraq. What I think you are doing here in your last statement is assuming the worst and most unlikely scenario as an appeal to the people.Most will more than likely disregard such.

 

[ModerateDem]

Hate to break it to you NP, you're not a conservative just because you say you are. See, Orwellian doctrine that this administration is adopting which you blindly support goes completely against conservative ideology of a minimalist government that stays the **** out of ppl's lives.

Navy pride is definitely right of center. Granted even most people associated with the Conservative grouping carry some liberal ideas economically. that would not disqualify him from being a conservative.

I have a question For you Jfuh. What is your view on taxes? Should they be raised or lowered? this question has purpose so don't discount it yet.

 

[Captain America]

You think? I'm proud to be a liberal. Who'd want to be a conservative these days? Eww.

The way they have "redifined" conservatives in this day and age, I'm with you on that one Iriemon. I used to be proud to call myself conservative but the label has been so bastardized as of late if somebody refers to me as one of them, "them's fightin' words!"

Speakin' of which......

I wonder why Navy Pride is ashamed to be called Republican? (Besides the obvious? :roll: ) We all know he is. Undoubtedly, without a question. GOP thru and thru, yet he claims to be an "independant" :rofl .

Because he voted for LBJ and Scoop Jackson once and likes Dick?

:mrgreen:

Happy weekend y'all.